UPDATE: Is is now totally unraveled. The person related to the culling license speaks out, see below.
I feel there will be more crow pie coming on the menu for David Appell and Nick Stokes.
Simon from Australian Climate Madness writes:
This is turning into the story that keeps on giving. After yesterday’s revelation that the one possible “threat” was actually an innocent discussion about culling kangaroos, now Legal Affairs editor Chris Merritt writes in The Weekend Australian:
Media Watch eyes climate scientist death threat claims
AFTER triggering a global news event with reports about death threats against climate scientists, the ABC and Fairfax Media are under investigation by Media Watch after a central plank supporting their reports was found to be non-existent.
Before the flaws in their reports were revealed, their versions of the truth had been picked up by Britain’s The Guardian and the scientific journal Nature.
The critical error in their reports, which has been revealed by The Australian, is that emails held by the Australian National University that were supposed to outline death threats against climate scientists have been independently assessed as containing no death threats.
Those emails were made public on Tuesday after a long Freedom of Information campaign by blogger Simon Turnill.
Full story here
============================================================
UPDATE: On the website “Catalaxy Files” and in comments on WUWT below, the person who is at the center of the alleged “death threat” months before the other emails, identifies himself. Link.
Read it from the beginning here: http://catallaxyfiles.com/2012/05/10/the-dog-ate-my-death-threats-with-garcinia cambogia-ii/
Here’s the comment left on WUWT:
I feel I can now throw some light on the matter. The document viewed as most “threatening” referred to an alleged Deliberation at the ANU about climate change in the Canberra region at which one person “made a death threat” (sic) by showing his gun licence and boasting about his skill as a sniper.. Only two people dropped out of the conference only one of those who did so attended the even meal. Me. I am certainly the one who is alleged to show someone their gun licence. That is not true while at the evening meal (of poor quality) comments moved to eating game meat and I was approached by the Commissioner for the Environment ACT, Dr Maxine Cooper who recognized me as someone involved in the kangaroo culling program in the ACT. She politely asked if she could sit at the vacant seat next to me and asked if I had past the recent licence test – not easy. I replied yes and showed her my current licence. I also impressed on any one interested the high standard of marksmanship necessary to allay any cruelty concerns. I might add that earlier in the day I had challenged two speakers to comment on a letter in the Canberra Times that claimed that temperatures had not increased in the Canberra area for decades. They were unable to do so, having not apparently checked the record despite the the “Deliberation” (conference) supposed to be about rising temperatures in the Canberra region. As all daytime conversations were recorded (we all signed waivers to allow this) this can easily be checked.
I note Readfearn has commented on the “death threat at the conference” in Crikey ,com. He got one thing right I did leave of my own accord. When meal had finished and a piss poor meal it was.
I see after posting above that references to the Melb Uni video are not allowed because there is no connection between the perps and credible scepticism. I agree with that, and indeed there is no connection between any death threats and credible scepticism. Just as there is no connection between, say, Charles Manson and climate science.
I’d be very happy to support that proposition. The abuse and threats are not a stain on scepticism. But they still have an effect on people in science. So I resist claims that they don’t exist.
There are far worse things that can happen to a Kangaroo than being shot 🙂
So the absolute dick in the video was a La Rouche supporter. That tends to explain it.
I am glad that the claims of death threats at ANU have turned out to be fabricated garbage, and I am amused to see them caught out. But in rejecting their propaganda there is a danger that we go too far and assert that all on our side are angels. Sadly the world is full of absolute dicks and some can be found on all sides of every issue.
The true test in my opinion is how the morons and dangerous idiots are regarded by the mainstream on their side of the debate. Are they and their actions repudiated, disowned and rejected or are they accepted or even supported. I therefore see our repudiation of the noose waver as being the most important thing. However I think it would be foolish to pretend that people like this do not exist.
Just as there is no connection between, say, Charles Manson and climate science.
Nick Stokes,
I believe Anthony has admitted he was wrong and apologized for the post of his that you linked.
The question is, do you have the integrity to clearly and unambiguously admit you were wrong and apologize for pushing what is now a completely debunked tale of death threats being made against ANU climate scientists, or will you continue to try to spin, obfuscate, deflect blame, and throw around red herrings in the hopes of keeping the lie alive?
I know which way I’d bet, but perhaps you’ll surprise me.
Which brings up a question: Does anyone know of any instance in which a Cli-Sci AGW advocate has admitted any scientific error and recanted or adjusted the original claim? The closest I can come is a few instances of changing the subject/terminology.
Would that be some of the aforementioned pheasant pluckers? Poor pheasants!
;(
😉
;p
Nick;
Have you spent even 1 minute investigating or responding to the plethora of explicit and frequently crude death threats (not just implied maybe kinda unwelcome comments) against sceptics, aka “deni-er-alists”? Your concern for victims of abuse rings as hollow as a drained oil drum.
Frank K;
If said CEOs of rent-seeking renewable energy companies feel threatened by those who consider they’re just rent-seeking at the country’s and world’s expense, and think they should be charged with causing harm, then either
a) they’re guilty, or
b) they feel the courts would be so biased against them that they’d be unfairly convicted.
Which do you suppose it is?
CTL,
I’m not pushing any particular stories. I didn’t initiate this series of posts. In fact, I think these discussions are generally unhelpful. Where I come in is where people assert that scientists are lying about the threats. I think that is not true, and is unfair because they are genuinely under stresses that they should not be subject to.
Nick Stokes says:
May 13, 2012 at 12:04 am
CTL,
I’m not pushing any particular stories. I didn’t initiate this series of posts. In fact, I think these discussions are generally unhelpful. Where I come in is where people assert that scientists are lying about the threats. I think that is not true, and is unfair because they are genuinely under stresses that they should not be subject to.
Since the police determined that there were no threats, and since the contents of the e-mails contained no threats, and since the only thing remotely resembling a threat was a third-hand recounting of a conversation involving kangaroo culling, the only thing left to conclude is that the scientists were lying about the threats — and you are admitting they were lying by throwing the sympathy card in an attempt to excuse them for lying.
E-mails mocking them for incompetence put them “genuinely under stresses” — what a crock.
Bill Tuttle says: May 13, 2012 at 1:00 am
Bill, I’ve been trying to get some accuracy here.
Since the police determined that there were no threats
There’s no basis for saying that. To the contrary, the first report, Canberra Times, 4 June 2011 said:
“The Australian Federal Police says it has not been contacted by the university although it is aware that threats have been made.”
All that could be inferred is that police thought there was not enough evidence to sustain a conviction – not the same thing at all.
“the only thing left to conclude is that the scientists were lying about the threats”
There’s very little in the emails about what scientists said. The report of the gun licence thing came from a conference organised by the “Deliberative Democracy” outfit. Steffen simply informed his staff and V-C, as he had to. The statements reported by the ABC etc were quoting the Vice-Chancellor. Which scientists do you say were lying? Where?
Nick,
you need to get off this topic because you are being irrational and making a fool of yourself as well.You have no case to build on and what you have been writing here is causing us to laugh at you.
You failed to notice that after 11 months the Australian Federal Police has NOT launched an investigation and the University has NOT filed a formal complaint on the matter.It is obvious that despite a lot of babbling by the University on the threats .It has been shown nearly 11 months later that they were B’sing us on the level of the seriousness of the allegations (never shown in June of 2011).
It took an FOI that the University fought against for months to call them liars and exaggerators of the claimed MANY death threats.The media at the time in their typical one sided bias and the many alarmists ran with it despite that it was at the time UNSUPPORTED allegations of the supposed many death threats.It was unalloyed propaganda campaign to tar the skeptics with undisclosed allegations of a serious nature that normally would have the police all over it if they were as bad the University claimed at the time.
Privacy Commissioner Timothy Pilgrim ruled here explaining why he released the 11 e-mails from the FINDINGS area of his report:
“13. The consultant’s assessment relies on the existence of ‘threatening and abusive information communicated to the Climate Change Institute’ in assessing whether release of the documents would cause danger to the life or physical safety of the recipients. As 10 emails do not contain threats of harm against the recipients or the ANU, I consider this report cannot be relied upon to determine whether release of the documents would cause the harm identified in the report. It is not clear from the report whether the emails were viewed by the consultant.
14. I give separate consideration to the email describing a participant’s behaviour and comments at the off-campus event which the ANU regarded as threatening. In my view, the exchange as described in the email could be regarded as intimidating and at its highest perhaps alluding to a threat. In its reasons for decision, the ANU stated that it did not report this incident to the AFP because the incident occurred off-campus and it is incumbent upon people who are directly involved in an incident to make a first person report to the police. The ANU advised that University security encouraged the staff member to report the incident to police. I consider the danger to life or physical safety in this case to be only a possibility, not a real chance.”
http://www.oaic.gov.au/publications/decisions/2012_aicmr12.html
Ten of the e-mails have NO death threats at all in ANY forum and the 11th is he he ….. off campus.The University was creamed by his ruling and YOU know it!
Try reading the actual e-mails here and see why the University did not bother asking the police to investigate.There was nothing there to support their lying allegations of 11 months earlier.
http://www.wakeup2thelies.com/2012/05/10/read-the-so-called-anu-death-threat-emails-in-full-here/
Here is what ABC stated back in june 2011:
“Several of Australia’s top climate change scientists at the Australian National University have been subjected to a campaign of death threats, forcing the university to tighten security.
Several of the scientists in Canberra have been moved to a more secure location after receiving the threats over their research.
Vice-chancellor Professor Ian Young says the scientists have received large numbers of emails, including death threats and abusive phone calls, threatening to attack the academics in the street if they continue their research.
He says it has been happening for the past six months and the situation has worsened significantly in recent weeks.”
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-06-04/death-threats-sent-to-top-climate-scientists/2745536
Yet the e-mails they released calls them a liar since it does NOT have evidence of a “campaign of death threats” in them.In fact they never had ANY death threats at all in those 6 months,according to those 11 e-mails they released.
The University says they were forced to “tighten security” and moved them to an undisclosed location.Yet they NEVER FILED A COMPLAINT WITH THE POLICE and never has the police investigated the alleged claims which any ration being would have taken them VERY SERIOUSLY….. if ……. they were true and real.This after ELEVEN MONTHS!
Recall this revelation that the University failed to act up on that was posted in June of LAST YEAR:
“Last time I checked, which was about thirty seconds ago, making threats to kill in the ACT was a criminal offence, thanks to section 30 of the Crimes Act (ACT) 1900, and punishable by a maximum of ten years imprisonment. A similar provision for threats to kill via a postal service or carriage service appears in the Schedule to the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act 1995, with a similar punishment.”
http://www.australianclimatemadness.com/2011/06/death-threats-to-anu-scientists/
Nick you have nothing.No Filed complaints.No Police investigations.You have nothing,NOTHIIIING!
I think you need to give it a rest and get on with your life since you have lost this argument hands down.
well said SunSettTommy
Perhaps now the V-C could start to answer some rather awkward questions
and face the press and police about making false alligations?
I fear the culling of Kangeroos is a metafor for the destruction of that specially flinty independence I used to know in Ozzies.
Nick Stokes says:
May 13, 2012 at 2:59 am
@ur momisugly me, May 13, 2012 at 1:00 am
Bill, I’ve been trying to get some accuracy here.
By all means — let’s get some accuracy here.
“Since the police determined that there were no threats”
There’s no basis for saying that. To the contrary, the first report, Canberra Times, 4 June 2011 said: “The Australian Federal Police says it has not been contacted by the university although it is aware that threats have been made.”
The basis for saying that is that the Australian Federal Police were aware of the so-called threats, but since no one at ANU took those “threats” seriously enough to contact them and file a complaint, the police decided quite properly that someone had gotten his knickers in a knot for some reason, but wasn’t genuinely concerned over it.
All that could be inferred is that police thought there was not enough evidence to sustain a conviction – not the same thing at all.
Ah — another chance for accuracy. The police receive a complaint, investigate, and then turn the results over to a state attorney, who – being more familiar with the ins and outs of the law than a cop – decides whether or not there are sufficient grounds to prosecute. Said solicitor then takes his recommendation to *his* boss, higher up the food chain, and *he* decides whether or not the evidence would sustain a conviction.
“the only thing left to conclude is that the scientists were lying about the threats”
There’s very little in the emails about what scientists said. The report of the gun licence thing came from a conference organised by the “Deliberative Democracy” outfit. Steffen simply informed his staff and V-C, as he had to. The statements reported by the ABC etc were quoting the Vice-Chancellor. Which scientists do you say were lying? Where?
Duh. The ANU scientists who said that they had received e-mailed death threats.
And the Vice-chancellor is probably kicking himself for not having asked to see the e-mails in question when he was first told that his faculty members had received threatening e-mails.
Your turn to answer a question: Why, upon being told that some of his people had been receiving death threats, would someone in the position of Vice-chancellor of a major university *not* raise holy hell, *not* contact the police, *not* file a complaint, and *not* demand 24-hour police protection for them?
That’s assuming, of course, that the Vice-chancellor considered the threats to be *valid*…
Dang. sunsettommy beat me to the punch. And hit harder, too…
nicky, nicky
You have really stepped in it this time. Your rep is in tatters. All you can hope for now is that the world burns up really soon.
Nick Stokes says:
May 13, 2012 at 12:04 am
“CTL,
I’m not pushing any particular stories. I didn’t initiate this series of posts. In fact, I think these discussions are generally unhelpful. Where I come in is where people assert that scientists are lying about the threats. I think that is not true, and is unfair because they are genuinely under stresses that they should not be subject to.”
Nick there is nothing to sustain the story of a death threat, but nothing at all.
It is not only that but the story was exploited and circulated.
Furthermore Shub Niggurath makes a point here:
http://nigguraths.wordpress.com/2012/05/12/how-does-one-trust-an-australian-climate-scientist/
…
“4) There do not seem to be any death threats.
Right now, cries of “A-Ha!” by climate skeptics derive mainly from the impact of revelation of facts previously hidden from public view. But there is one group who knew these facts all along – the climate scientists who originally received these emails.
Even as the spectre of death threats was raised and cynically exploited – perhaps by the university, and by Nature and Guardian, the scientists kept mum. As skeptics said: “the debate may be heated up, but whatever the case, death threats are not acceptable”, the scientists knew there were no threats of the sort, but yet kept their silence. They simply let faceless and anonymous members of the public – i.e., skeptics, be tarred.”
We should not forget what the so called death threats amounted to. It was an over dinner conversation largely between the ACT Commissioner for the Environment, who has a major role in the annual kangaroo cull, and a licensed culler. Other persons around the table would have been a party to it and there may well have been explanations to these about the testing program. To do othewise would have been as rude as talking behind your hand or turning your back to someone at the table. Imagine going to the police with that! “The Commissioner was talking to this shooter about the culling program we want him arrested” I think the only result would have been certifiication of the complainant to a psychiatric ward
Nick — relax and take a deep, cleansing breath. Exhale on a plant and listen to it purr (figuratively, of course) from getting a nice dose of life-giving CO2.
When the piranhas at your place get to be too much, come on back here and we’ll talk about something neutral, such as the inhuman abuse New Joisey– uhhh — Jersey residents must suffer by having the size of their lovely state used as a metric for ecological disasters.
Hey John Coochey
If we are to assume you are the evil denial sniper that intended to pick off climate “scientists” with your mad sniper skills… any chance you can sue them for libel over this?
Your “death threat” has been world wide public fodder. I know in the UK its very very easy to sue for libel which is why Mann and other climate nutters have considered suing under UK rules to shut sceptics down in the past. No idea what aussies rules are for that… however if similar to the UK’s you’d probably have a pretty good chance.
An article covering the debunking of the death threats was published on p2 of the Australian today (a major national broadsheet) I was also interviewed yesterday by the Sydney Telegraph and the Herald Sun (Not to be confused with the Sydney Morning Herald)
Well, Nick, my wager money is safe; your response did not surprise me.
Instead of being honorable and displaying some personal integrity by admitting your mistake, apologizing, and moving on, you’ve chosen to write even more lies, more spin, more obfuscation, more non sequiturs, more red herrings, and more fantasies to try to prop up your baseless propaganda.
“I’m not pushing any particular stories. I didn’t initiate this series of posts. In fact, I think these discussions are generally unhelpful.”
Better hope people don’t visit your blog and see what a steaming pile of bullshit that statement is.
You’ve written hundreds of blog posts and comments — tens of thousands of words, and hours of your time — trying to salvage this debunked death-threat fable for the sole purpose of using it to slander people who disagree with you.
John Coochey,
Thank you for directly relating to us here @ur momisugly WUWT your eye witness information wrt one of ANU’s fabricated death threats.
John
One advantage of being self unemployed (retired) is that I cannot be threatened
Summary / Reprise
The thing about CAGW fanatics, like all radical leftists, is that they will lie, lie lie in order to support their position. I’ve seen this again and again – the end justifies the means. Sometimes they just make it up as they go, to support their untenable scientific and ethical stance.
When it comes to the sensibilities of our earnest egalitarian effete progressive journalists in the media some things are just so manifestly obvious that they don’t really require the discovery of tangible evidence. The idea that mean ‘right wing’ ‘deniers’ are out there threatening the lives of earnest egalitarian effete progressive climate scientists is one of those things just like the idea that humans, capitalism, and consumerism are destroying the planet.
I think this is among the most significant info for me.
And i am glad reading your article. But wanna remark on few general things, The
website style is wonderful, the articles is really nice : D.
Good job, cheers
John Coochey says:
May 14, 2012 at 1:33 pm
One advantage of being self unemployed (retired) is that I cannot be threatened
________________________________
Do not make a bet on that. I and several of my self-employed neighbors can refute that statement from personal experience. Regulations and bureaucrats are especially useful for punishing those with an independent streak.
Thank you for the warning, I will bear that in mind/